Fantasy vs. reality: Keeping us safe from guns

Graphics

The toy industry has struggled as of late, and kids have been suspended or expelled for playing with toy guns.

Kids have been playing military games like “Cowboys and Indians” and “Cops and Robbers” for as far back as I can remember. I don't recall having the urge, to secure a real weapon and use it on anyone.

My father was in the military, and I grew up knowing he had a government-issue revolver and where he kept it. Many of my friends knew there were weapons in their houses but also knew that those items were “off-limits.” I learned early on that, under no circumstances was I to go near my Dad's weapon or anyone else's weapon. Doing so would bring the wrath of Dad down upon me, and that was deterrent enough not to breach the rules.

These anti-gun (and now anti-toy-gun) fanatics avoid discussing the issue of parental responsibility. Parental responsibilities include teaching children right from wrong, what is acceptable behavior and what is not, and that there are consequences for poor behavior. Instead, these anti-gun fanatics would rather bring the government into the picture to dictate how parents should raise their kids with respect to guns. That is the responsibility of the parents.

It is not playing with “toy” guns that cause a miniscule number of individuals to take up real weapons.

Parents need to go back to raising kids the old-fashioned way – teach them right from wrong, instill in them a respect for authority and teach them that to win a prize you have to work hard and be better than the next guy.

It is the responsibility of the parents to raise their kids, not the government's.

Scott Irwin

Fullerton

One side screeches, “Don't take my guns,” and the other side shrieks, “Guns kill.” Neither side is addressing the underlying problems.

What about the people killed by gang violence? Are we numb to that? What about the violence portrayed in the entertainment media? I find it distressing that the Hollywood sect is silent on this issue. These same people profit from the extraordinary display of gore in their industry. What about the children who are being raised without a solid foundation?

We need a comprehensive approach to the ever-growing tragedies of gun violence. Both sides need to calm their rhetoric, then approach this problem intelligently. We should care about all victims, not just the ones that make headlines.

Kathleen Lehman

Santa Ana

The question of gun control will be intensified by the actions of accused killer Christopher Dorner and the concern about getting “these” type of mentally unstable persons away from society [“A search for Dorner and answers,” Front Page, Feb. 10].

The truth is that we cannot save everyone, as the president would naively want, without severely restricting everyone's freedom. To stop a person like Dorner, so he could not hurt
one person, we would need to take guns away from everyone. We would also need to put away anyone who shows a tendency to harm himself or others, makes statements against people or institutions that can be construed as threatening and/or behaves “anti-socially.” Even then, you might not be able to take all the guns or detain all the people who would hurt others.

We need to have a serious discussion regarding the cost of freedom and what our society is willing to give up to keep people safe. A line must be drawn over what we expect for the cost of our freedom and over what society would consider an allowable loss to keep our freedoms. Truly this is not an easy decision but
we need to make it – not a president or a bunch of people sitting in Congress.

Al Kakita

Huntington Beach

Intervene in Egypt?

Letter-writer Sara Latif makes a passionate and attractive case for U.S. intervention to stabilize Egypt. She wants to ensure that “all parties have a chance” and wants “a new constitution that promotes human rights and equality for all” [“Trouble in Tahrir,” Feb. 11]. Her formulation echoes the rallying cries of past leaders of our nation and speaks to the compassion in the American soul that has inspired great good in the world.

History should make us cautious when we hear this rallying cry. “Empire” is not only a noun. It's a behavior with unpredictable consequences. To cite one of many examples around the globe, as part of our effort to save Iran from the communists, the U.S. enabled the creation of a secret police organization there whose activities generated an undercurrent of popular mistrust of our country that handicaps our relations to this day.

Successful interventions to remake other nations would appear the exception. The post-World War II reconstruction of Germany and Japan took place after total obliteration of their prior community structure, economy, armed forces and government infrastructure. I suspect not even the most sanguine interventionists would want to see our sons and daughters sacrificed to such a venture.

As sad as it is to watch the people of the Egypt suffer, we should be pragmatic in a situation with no good alternatives. The future of Egypt is an issue for the Egyptians themselves to decide.

Norman Harris

Tustin

Rubio unfairly ridiculed

Media bias is real and thriving. Consider the coverage of Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio's awkward reach for a drink of water. It was replayed dozens of times on CNN and MSNBC and was always coupled with apparent disdain from the commentators.

Our first lady said on national television, “Me and Barack talked about that,” which should be “Barack and I.” Vice President Joe Biden claimed Franklin Roosevelt went on national television after the 1929 stock market crash to reassure the American public. Herbert Hoover was president and TV wasn't available nationally for a generation.

Then there is President Barack Obama, apparently grammatically challenged, who cannot read and correctly pronounce “corpsman” off a teleprompter. It's “core,” not “corpse.” Our president also claimed the language of Austria is “Austrian” – it is, in fact, German. He was also excused for forgetting he couldn't have visited 57 states because he was tired. We have only 50 states, 48 of which are contiguous.

I guess, in the immortal words of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had dodged imaginary bullets in Serbia, “What difference does it make?

Nicholas Wishek

Fountain Valley

Letter-writer Leonard Musgrave argues that “Rubio is doomed” [Feb. 14] and when Sen. Marco Rubio gave the rebuttal to President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech that his delivery was less than ideal. Musgrave, like many others, looks to delivery but virtually ignores the speech's content.

President Obama delivered one of his better speeches. His laundry list of legislative proposals contained many things that people would desire. However, almost none of these things could realistically pass both houses of Congress, due to the economy and a divided Congress. Musgrave criticized Rubio but ignored what the senator said about solving our nation's problem, which was in his powerful rebuttal.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.